by Pie Guevara (the smarter, better looking brother)
EITHER. . .
1) Obama and the leadership in his administration actually believed for nearly a week the terrorist attack in Benghazi was a demonstration, turned to riot, turned to embassy attack over a stupid YouTube movie trailer DESPITE what every intelligence agency said to the contrary
2) Obama and the leadership in his administration had a reason to deny and portray the attack as something besides a terror operation, despite the facts.
Take your pick, either way they come out as inept and not merely incompetent but dangerously and deadly incompetent. Especially in light of the lessons learned from 9-11.
Now the administration is trying to spin this incident as an “unprecedented” attack despite the overwhelming evidence of clear warnings weeks before the attack and the simple fact attacks on U.S. embassies are far from “unprecedented”.
Excuse me Mr. President, but this incident is NOT the result of a breakdown in — or a politically contrived and legally constructed barrier to — inter-agency intelligence communications and the executive branch. This was not 9-11. It was a celebration of 9-11 by terrorist operatives and you and the leadership of your administration, Mr. President, were not up to the task.
I don’t take this as corruption by the current administration. Examples of that are plentiful. I take it as an alarm bell on just how removed from reality and insulated inside their own inept arrogance and world view they are. Evidently Obama thinks a policy of apologizing and appeasing the Muslim street by expressing his revulsion for a stupid movie is the way to approach terror and Muslim anger and intolerance.
Here is a clue for you, Mr. President — Muslim intolerance and obsession with offense to their rapine and bloody prophet will not be assuaged by your speechifying before the UN; Islam does not give a gnat’s pa-toot for free speech; and Muslim terrorists are rolling on the floor with laughter between giving each other high fives.
Now Obama and his staff are trying to point fingers everywhere but at themselves as a form of damage control that is as inept as their handling of the embassy warnings and intelligence leading up to this horrific event.
If Obama and his subordinate and surrogates could find a way pin this attack to Bush or the Tea Party they would. Even after idiotically trying to pin it to a less-than-B movie so bad it could find a cult following. It would not surprise me that, at the very least, such has been discussed.
Oh they have…remember they inherited this mess…and then proceeded to blow it up!
Marc Theissen of the Washington Post suggests that the more serious scandal in Benghazi is the complete lack of response by the administration. We have been given excuses about the cause of the attack and we have heard arguments and spin about whether security was adequate. We have taken note of the changing story and questioned whether the administration is involved in a political campaign year cover-up. But no one seems to be concerned about the lack of response.
After summarizing and comparing responses by previous administrations, retaliatory responses by Libyans on the ground in Benghazi, and mentioning the accomplishments of news crews to gather information Theissen suggests:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-the-real-libya-scandal-the-failure-to-respond/2012/10/11/59d0e8d2-13af-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html?hpid=z2
Its an important question that speaks to incompetence or complete disregard for the responsibilities of the presidency and defense of our country. McCarthy compared the leadership of former presidents Clinton and Bush:
Theissen has a point. In terms of leadership and defense of America there has been no adequate response to this attack that is in any way similar to other presidents in the recent past.
Wow! Front page status. I didn’t expect that from my recent comment. Thanks! (I think.)
While I thoroughly love and enjoy the exquisite irony and potentially chuckle inducing humor of associating Che Guevara and his image with me (something I always intended the Pie Guevara handle to do, by the way), some folks on my side of the aisle may find this aggressive contrast a bit confusing. If I happen to confuse the left, no problem, they are already confused.
To be honest my nom de plume (or more accurately nom de keyboard) was chosen as a joke to begin with. But it is also my homage to National Lampoon artist and art director Michael Gross.
See http://www.marksverylarge.com/issues/7201.html and click on the magazine cover thumbnail of Che Guevara getting a pie in the face to see an enlargement.
Yep, you guessed it, National Lampoon was a part of my adult formative years just like MAD Magazine and The Three Stooges were part of my childhood … oh heck, who am I kidding, I still love The Three Stooges.
In any case, you are welcome to use any image of Che (or anything else for that matter) when referring to me, but my unofficial (and likely copyright violating) image of Pie Guevara is a reworked image of Michael Gross’ January 1972 National Lampoon magazine cover that I did in GIMP a few years ago.
You can see and copy that image here if the occasion presents itself and you would like to use it in the future —
https://picasaweb.google.com/116625859443135325739/PieGuevaraMyUploads?authkey=Gv1sRgCJjIhLbWzZqbnQE
Someday I will create a Pie Guevara image of my own using a cherry or apple pie instead, but it will still be an idea stolen from and inspired by Michael Gross. Yes, I have no shame when it comes to stealing other people’s jokes.
Anyway, thanks for the Post Scripts header. You almost make me want to fire up the dusty and discarded Pie Guevara blog. That or set it on fire, watch it burn, and stomp on the ashes. Of course, you can always follow my keen, thoughtful, and insightful comments, wiseacre remarks, and pure, unadulterated snark on Twitter, which is my most recent bad habit.
By the way, if I am going to get front page status here I’ll need to better edit my own prose. That last paragraph should have read —
“If Obama and his subordinates and surrogates could find a way pin this attack to Bush or the Tea Party they would. Even after idiotically trying to pin it to a less-than-B movie so bad it cannot even find a cult following. It would not surprise me that, at the very least, such has been discussed.”
Pie, actually this character figure in red is a highly modified from the Che’ version. Nose, eyes, lips are changed and American flag added to the beret.
You mention Mad Magazine, Nat’l Lampoon, Three Stooges…all favorites of at least 50% of all intelligent young American males of the 60’s.
Hey, I didn’t even notice the mods until you mentioned it, ventured to click on it, and was provided an enlarged version. Did you do that? In any case, well done! Works for me.
On close examination the mods make me look so Hollywood. I also enjoy the laughing ghost mask (once a jacket shoulder) in the lower left hand corner. It reminds me of the ubiquitous Greek theater comedy mask. No, I haven’t taken a Rorschach test recently.
Speaking of The Three Stooges …
Of all the people who played the third Stooge, who do you think was the most cerebral?
Shemp Howard, Curly Howard, Joe Besser, Curly Joe DeRita, or Joe Biden?
Clearly Biden was the funniest of them all.